Locke traces the concept of active power to the experience of voluntary action in ourselves. I ar... more Locke traces the concept of active power to the experience of voluntary action in ourselves. I argue that Locke does not find in voluntary action a necessary connection binding volition and action. I defend the application of Locke's regularity theory of causal judgment to the operation of the will. The will is classified as a cause because it is regularly accompanied by a movement in our limbs or a change in our thoughts. I argue that Locke does not equate the concepts of cause and active power. He maintains that something can serve as a cause, and so bring about change, in virtue of activity or in virtue of its susceptibility to external influence. I go on to develop what I refer to as the ascription puzzle. Locke, who provides a criterion for classifying something as a cause, does not develop a criterion of for classifying causes as either active or passive in nature. The ascription puzzle is vexing because Locke has no principled way to establish, among other things, that humans, in acting voluntarily, exercise active power. The result is that Locke should not be taken to identify the experience of voluntary action as the origin of the concept of active power because of any metaphysical considerations bearing on human agency.
The standard interpretation of the impression of will takes Hume to advance two substantive claim... more The standard interpretation of the impression of will takes Hume to advance two substantive claims about the experience of willing an act. The first claim holds that this experience is readily introspectible; the second that this experience is strictly antecedent to the performance of an act. This interpretation has rendered the impression of will vulnerable to two lines of criticism. One problem is introspective. We are not normally aware of a distinct experience of willing an act. Another problem is temporal. It is odd to think that the experience of volition is something that occurs in its entirety prior to the performance of an act. I argue that the standard interpretation, which burdens Hume with an implausible view of the experience of willing an act, imports claims for which there is insufficient textual evidence and which are not required by his theoretical commitments.
British Journal for the History of Philosophy, 2016
Scholars have employed three interpretive strategies to explain how Locke understands the metaphy... more Scholars have employed three interpretive strategies to explain how Locke understands the metaphysical relationship between a superadded property and the material body to which it is affixed. The first is the mechanist strategy advanced by Michael Ayers and Edwin McCann. It argues that the mechanical affections of a given body are causally responsible for the operation of superadded powers. The second is the extrinsic strategy found in Mathew Stuart. It argues that Locke, who rejects mechanism, does not intend to ground superadded properties in the mechanical affections of material bodies. The third is the essentialist strategy developed by Lisa Downing. It argues that Locke, who does not adhere to mechanism, nevertheless intends to ground superadded properties in the real constitutions of their bearers. However, according to Downing, what grounds superadded properties are the nonmechanical affections of material bodies. My aim in this paper is to expand and strengthen the case for the extrinsic reading. I argue that what is recommended by Locke's writings on this topic is a thoroughly extrinsic interpretation according to which superaddition pertains exclusively to those properties for which no possible arrangement of mechanical or nonmechanical affections is causally sufficient.
I examine Hume’s ‘construal of the basic structure of human agency’ and his ‘analysis of human ag... more I examine Hume’s ‘construal of the basic structure of human agency’ and his ‘analysis of human agency’ as they arise in his investigation of causal power. Hume’s construal holds both that volition is separable from action and that the causal mechanism of voluntary action is incomprehensible. Hume’s analysis argues, on the basis of these two claims, that we cannot draw the concept of causal power from human agency. Some commentators suggest that Hume’s construal of human agency is untenable, unduly skeptical, or uniquely entailed by the limits of empiricism. However, as I argue, these criticisms depend either on a misunderstanding of Hume’s analysis of human agency or on a neglect of the historical context of his view.
Some philosophers argue that Hume, given his theory of causation, is committed to an implausibly ... more Some philosophers argue that Hume, given his theory of causation, is committed to an implausibly thin account of what it is like to act voluntarily. Others suggest, on the basis of his argument against free will, that Hume takes no more than an illusory feature of action to distinguish the experience of performing an act from the experience of merely observing an act. In this paper, I argue that Hume is committed to neither an unduly parsimonious nor a sceptical account of the phenomenology of agency.
Locke traces the concept of active power to the experience of voluntary action in ourselves. I ar... more Locke traces the concept of active power to the experience of voluntary action in ourselves. I argue that Locke does not find in voluntary action a necessary connection binding volition and action. I defend the application of Locke's regularity theory of causal judgment to the operation of the will. The will is classified as a cause because it is regularly accompanied by a movement in our limbs or a change in our thoughts. I argue that Locke does not equate the concepts of cause and active power. He maintains that something can serve as a cause, and so bring about change, in virtue of activity or in virtue of its susceptibility to external influence. I go on to develop what I refer to as the ascription puzzle. Locke, who provides a criterion for classifying something as a cause, does not develop a criterion of for classifying causes as either active or passive in nature. The ascription puzzle is vexing because Locke has no principled way to establish, among other things, that humans, in acting voluntarily, exercise active power. The result is that Locke should not be taken to identify the experience of voluntary action as the origin of the concept of active power because of any metaphysical considerations bearing on human agency.
The standard interpretation of the impression of will takes Hume to advance two substantive claim... more The standard interpretation of the impression of will takes Hume to advance two substantive claims about the experience of willing an act. The first claim holds that this experience is readily introspectible; the second that this experience is strictly antecedent to the performance of an act. This interpretation has rendered the impression of will vulnerable to two lines of criticism. One problem is introspective. We are not normally aware of a distinct experience of willing an act. Another problem is temporal. It is odd to think that the experience of volition is something that occurs in its entirety prior to the performance of an act. I argue that the standard interpretation, which burdens Hume with an implausible view of the experience of willing an act, imports claims for which there is insufficient textual evidence and which are not required by his theoretical commitments.
British Journal for the History of Philosophy, 2016
Scholars have employed three interpretive strategies to explain how Locke understands the metaphy... more Scholars have employed three interpretive strategies to explain how Locke understands the metaphysical relationship between a superadded property and the material body to which it is affixed. The first is the mechanist strategy advanced by Michael Ayers and Edwin McCann. It argues that the mechanical affections of a given body are causally responsible for the operation of superadded powers. The second is the extrinsic strategy found in Mathew Stuart. It argues that Locke, who rejects mechanism, does not intend to ground superadded properties in the mechanical affections of material bodies. The third is the essentialist strategy developed by Lisa Downing. It argues that Locke, who does not adhere to mechanism, nevertheless intends to ground superadded properties in the real constitutions of their bearers. However, according to Downing, what grounds superadded properties are the nonmechanical affections of material bodies. My aim in this paper is to expand and strengthen the case for the extrinsic reading. I argue that what is recommended by Locke's writings on this topic is a thoroughly extrinsic interpretation according to which superaddition pertains exclusively to those properties for which no possible arrangement of mechanical or nonmechanical affections is causally sufficient.
I examine Hume’s ‘construal of the basic structure of human agency’ and his ‘analysis of human ag... more I examine Hume’s ‘construal of the basic structure of human agency’ and his ‘analysis of human agency’ as they arise in his investigation of causal power. Hume’s construal holds both that volition is separable from action and that the causal mechanism of voluntary action is incomprehensible. Hume’s analysis argues, on the basis of these two claims, that we cannot draw the concept of causal power from human agency. Some commentators suggest that Hume’s construal of human agency is untenable, unduly skeptical, or uniquely entailed by the limits of empiricism. However, as I argue, these criticisms depend either on a misunderstanding of Hume’s analysis of human agency or on a neglect of the historical context of his view.
Some philosophers argue that Hume, given his theory of causation, is committed to an implausibly ... more Some philosophers argue that Hume, given his theory of causation, is committed to an implausibly thin account of what it is like to act voluntarily. Others suggest, on the basis of his argument against free will, that Hume takes no more than an illusory feature of action to distinguish the experience of performing an act from the experience of merely observing an act. In this paper, I argue that Hume is committed to neither an unduly parsimonious nor a sceptical account of the phenomenology of agency.
Uploads
Papers by Joshua Wood